http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jf6GRtUfbVBm0vBcpGBc_e5_wXMw
US top court upholds right to own guns, rejects handgun ban
That’s definitely a touchy subject.
On one hand, a country that is supposed to be incredibly free, including freedom of ownership on various items, reasonably this should include any item. I mean, logically if we’re as free as they say we are, we should be able to own nukes as well if we wanted to.
On the other hand, and the more rational hand, owning a gun let alone a nuke is extremely dangerous and threatening to many people. Owning it in the capital, that’s even more of an unreasonable request considering the importance of many people that live there.
Personally, I’m not sure where I stand on the debate, I think that if we want Americans to be safe, gun ownership should be out of the question but this should mean the police and military as well, and that doesn’t work. That gives the government a huge power over us. I also think that we should have the right to pay for and own what we want considering we live in a country so “free” as they say, but then we have Psycho’s legally buying guns so they can hunt animals for fun (yes, I think people who hunt animals for sport are psychotic) and people who use those guns on a killing spree. So…I dunno.
US top court upholds right to own guns, rejects handgun ban
While I’ll concede that the Second Amendment is ambiguously and clumsily worded, I believe the Supreme Court reached the right decision here. The right to bear arms is just that: a right to bear arms. It is not a right to use those arms to commit crimes. You cannot restrict the former on the grounds that it may lead to the latter any more than you can preemptively silence people on the grounds they might say something offensive and/or incite others to commit acts of violence.
Further, the decision rendered does not do away with the government’s ability to regulate gun ownership. It does not pave the way for individual ownership of nuclear weapons as per Jacks’ inane example. What it does do is strike at the heart of ridiculously stringent regulations such as the D.C. handgun ban.
Lastly, I’ll interject this point: more legal gun ownership does necessarily mean there will be more shootings. If anything, a well-armed citizenry can just as easily serve as a deterrent to would-be shooters and criminals.
US top court upholds right to own guns, rejects handgun ban
Admittedly it wasn’t the best example but it was the dilemma I’m having on this issue of whether we should be free to have and own what we want or safe under government regulations for dangerous items.
US top court upholds right to own guns, rejects handgun ban
A couple of things here;
First gun ownership is still regulated. Convicted felons, and the mentally ill for example cannot own guns. I believe that all states still require licenses, etc.
Second, “safe under government regulations for dangerous items.” Where exactly does this stop, knives are dangerous, saws, matches, lighters, just about everything can be classified as dangerous, especially if Congress gets involved.
US top court upholds right to own guns, rejects handgun ban
A couple of things here;
First gun ownership is still regulated. Convicted felons, and the mentally ill for example cannot own guns. I believe that all states still require licenses, etc.
Second, “safe under government regulations for dangerous items.” Where exactly does this stop, knives are dangerous, saws, matches, lighters, just about everything can be classified as dangerous, especially if Congress gets involved.[/quote]
Why do you think I’m torn on which side of the argument to take. How do you people not get this. I don’t fucking know.
US top court upholds right to own guns, rejects handgun ban
It’s a shame.
I agree that it’s constitutional, just about, but I think it’s a shitty bit of the constitution.
And I think that Bush has jumped on board to boost his failing constitutional credentials.
US top court upholds right to own guns, rejects handgun ban
That is one of the most important parts of the constitution.
US top court upholds right to own guns, rejects handgun ban
Hm… Well I agree that it is an important part of the constitution. I do not, believe, however, that most of the people who fight for it are fighting for it on a realistically constitutional basis. It is way, way too often that folks will fight for gun rights and then immediately turn around and fight for something with directly violates the First (in too many ways to name), the Fourth and Fifth, and a few others at certain points. Folks basically enjoy the “right” to cherry-pick from the constitution where it suits them and that, specifically, is totally disgusting to me. The Second Amendment, for some reason, seems to be the one which incites the most fervor in many folks to the point of them ignoring all of the other important rights that we’re supposed to have, in other words.
(and yes, I am pro gun rights)
US top court upholds right to own guns, rejects handgun ban
It is not an important part of the constitution. It is a foolish add on. It is important only insofar as its impact, not because of what it means.
US top court upholds right to own guns, rejects handgun ban
This is the second amendment of the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution!! What part of that did the U.S. Supreme court uphold, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
US top court upholds right to own guns, rejects handgun ban
Exactly, the right to have a pair of bear arms mounted on your wall. How could that possible be misconstrued! 
US top court upholds right to own guns, rejects handgun ban
Just an add on:
Not all states license gun owners. Here in my current state at 18 I can buy shotguns and rifles from anybody, but need a “purchase permit” to buy a handgun. If I want to buy a gun from a store then there’s an instant background check, as federally required. I also can’t own a class 3 (machine gun, silenced weapons) as Michigan doesn’t trust it’s citizens enough.
Now, in the state I’m moving to soon I don’t need ANYTHING to buy firearms from other people. If I buy from a gun from a store I still have to have the instant background check. AND there is “open carry” in effect. As long as the gun is visible you can carry it. Plus I can buy Class 3 weapons, AND actually shoot them as well.
Now guess which state has less crime? Even adjusted for population. (Hint: not the first one by a LOOONNGGG shot)
DC’s gun problems are a SYMPTOM. The officials attempted to go the easy road by curing the symptom… But it didn’t work. Since the base problem was never fixed.
I would think if removing constitutional rights for some citizens would do the trick the FIRST one I would remove is the freedom of speech. I’d like to see those gang bangers try to communicate when it’s made illegal, and they get arrested or WORSE. Because after all that stupid “cruel and unusual punishment” clause is just holding the government back from doing it’d job properly.
Or maybe the right to assemble. Can’t have a gang if people aren’t allowed to meet right?
How bout the right to privacy? Or the right against warrentless searches? I bet the cops jobs would be easier if they could just shut down a block and search it without pesky laws getting in their way…
I mean as I’ve been told by people before: If you’re not doing anything wrong, why worry about getting searched, or questioned at will? It seems most people have actually started to believe that the constitution only protects the GUILTY now in America…
But who am I? Just another silly American that actually VALUES his rights, and the -GASP- personal responsibility they require.
Folks basically enjoy the “right” to cherry-pick from the constitution where it suits them and that, specifically, is totally disgusting to me.
I hate these type as well. Every time the NCLU comes out against laws restricting CERTAIN rights, but totally accepts ANY law that restricts firearms I just want to vomit in my hat. But then I’d look like that cop on Monty Python, wearing a vomit filled hat. And I’m not funny looking enough to pull THAT off.
US top court upholds right to own guns, rejects handgun ban
Exactly! I’ve got THREE pairs right now over the mantle….
I’m thinking of shaving one of them, just for contrast ya know!
US top court upholds right to own guns, rejects handgun ban
I’ve heard that DC might be considering an end-run around the ruling by using zoning to effectively shut out gun shops :(.
US top court upholds right to own guns, rejects handgun ban
Right, of course, because I can’t have a gun I have no concept of whether or not it is actually significant or any logical stance on its value. Right. Bollocks.
US top court upholds right to own guns, rejects handgun ban
The cultural difference is still not a barrier to understanding the actual real significance to the constitution of weapons ownership. It’s more a philosophical issue than anything else.
US top court upholds right to own guns, rejects handgun ban
Nemo, don’t you think that if it was an add-on, it would have been the 10th Amendment, or a quickly added on 11th Amendment when it was written, not the Second? Even if the Amendments aren’t in order of how they are written, the fact it is a Second Amendment must have some sort of significance to the importance the writers felt it deserved. And the first part of it even tells why the importance of the right to bear arms - “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”
For those who wonder why the fight over the right to bear arms, it is that part, the fact that it can be argued that since we have a standing volunteer military that is supplied arms, it is unnecessary for the average citizen to have the right to carry a weapon.
And WingZ point in reply #2 does make sense. How much of a risk are you going to take in shooting someone if you know they are armed and can shoot back? That mentality could help in lowering the rates of shooting crimes.